Restitution is the term used for the return of or compensation for ascertainable assets seized due to National Socialist persecution. The allied powers first focused on the return of so-called organizational assets. This refers to assets confiscated by the National Socialist regime that used to belong to persecuted organizations (e.g. parties, trade unions, religious institutions). Individual assets and property attracted attention only at a later stage. 

In order to restitute assets, the occupying powers needed information about their whereabouts. Moreover, they had to bring them under allied control.  For this reason, the Control Council Proclamation No. 2 of September 20, 1945 (ABl. KR 1945, pp. 8-19 PDF) and the Control Council Law No. 2 of October 10, 1945 (ABl. KR 1945, pp. 19-21 PDF) stipulated the order to freeze all assets of the German Reich, its regional authorities, the Reich organizations, and of the NSDAP and its subdivisions.

The disposal and use of the frozen assets was determined by the cross-zonal Control Council Directive No. 50 of April 29, 1947 (ABl. KR 1947, pp. 275-278 PDF). It laid down only the basic principles, though, and did not carry legal force. The assets were to be retransferred – if possible – to the organizations or to their successors. Otherwise, they should be handed over to the Länder or regional districts.

In addition, Military Government Law No. 52 on the blocking and control of property was in effect in the three Western zones and in West Berlin, which included all property seized due to National Socialist persecution. (ABl. MilReg Kontrollgebiet der zwölften Armeegruppe. Nr. 1 (1944), pp. 24–27 PDF; ABl. MilReg. Kontrollgebiet der 21. Armeegruppe. Nr. 3 (1945), pp. 18–21 PDF; Journal Officiel 1947, pp. 585–588 PDF).

In the US and French occupation zones (including the Saarland), particularly authorized Land authorities managed the restitution of frozen assets to the organizations; in the British occupation zone and in West Berlin, institutions installed by the occupying powers carried out this task. Assets lacking an adequate owner or successor were retransferred to the Land administrations according the Control Council Directive. Jewish successor organizations (in the US and British occupation zones and in West Berlin) or the re-established Jewish communities (in the French occupation zone and in the Saarland) acquired the seized assets of former Jewish communities. In order to overrule the fiscal claim of inheritance, the successor organizations were also entitled to the assets that had no surviving owner or heir because of the Holocaust. The successor organizations included the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization (JRSO) in the US occupation zone, the Jewish Trust Corporation for Germany (JTC) and the Allgemeine Treuhandorganisation (ATO) in the British occupation zone and the Branche Française (an offshoot of the JTC) in the French occupation zone.

Restitution under occupation law

In 1947 and 1949, restitution laws enacted in the Länder of the Western occupation zones regulated the restitution to individual victims of persecution whose seized assets had been prevented from unauthorized access by MRG No. 52.

The Western zones and West Berlin adopted independent provisions: The US occupation zone enacted Law No. 59 about the "Restitution of identifiable property to victims of National Socialist repression" (USREG) on November 10, 1947 (ABl. Am MilReg 1947 G, pp. 1–25 PDF). In the British occupation zone, Law No. 59 on the Restitution of identifiable property to victims of Nazi oppression” (BREG) came into effect on May 12, 1949 (Abl. Brit MilReg 1949, pp. 1169–1187 PDF). The French occupation zone and – with deviations – the Saarland adopted Ordinance No. 120 "on the return of stolen items of property" (RüVO) of November 10, 1947 (Journal officiel 1947, pp. 1219–1221 PDF), while the BK/O (49) 180 "Restitution order of the Allied Kommandatura" (REAO) of July 26, 1949 (VOBl. Berlin [West], 1949 I, pp. 221–231 PDF) applied in the Western sectors of Berlin.

Restitution legislation had almost identical wording in the US and the British occupation zone and in West Berlin. In contrast, the RüVO of the French occupation zone and in the Saarland deviated substantially from the provisions of the other two occupying powers.

The provisions of the US and British occupation zones provided for the retransfer of assets that were still identifiable at the time of the decision on the claim. They awarded damages also in the event of destruction or loss of the assets. The French RüVO, though, lacked a regulation of this kind. 

The legislation also differed in the restitution procedures: According to the US and British legislation, the German Wiedergutmachung offices acted as arbitral authority and preceded legal proceedings in the regional and higher regional courts. Under French law, the claimants needed to assert their claims directly by means of a lawsuit without prior extra-judicial proceedings. As the restitution procedures turned out to be very complicated, claimants often sought advice from international support organizations. These organizations, such as the United Restitution Organization (URO), helped with the application and represented claimants in court.

Each occupation zone installed special restitution courts to serve as final courts of appeal: the Court of Restitution Appeals in Nuremberg for the US occupation zone, the Board of Review in Herford for the British occupation zone, and the Cour Supérieure pour les Restitutions in Rastatt for the French occupation zone.

With the “Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation” (BGBl. 1955 II, pp. 405–468, here p. 423 et seqq. PDF) of 1990, the courts merged into an international Supreme Restitution Court based in Herford. Berlin had an independent Supreme Restitution Court due to the particular situation of the city. 

The assets subject to restitution law included not only tangible objects, but also rights and notions of rights (trading assets, inheritances, business assets). Restitution law applied to all identifiable assets seized from their owners by force or under constraint between January 30, 1933 and May 8, 1945, for reasons of race, religion, nationality, ideology or political opposition to National Socialism. This included immoral legal transactions or illegal action, and other authority or government activities (laws, expropriation or confiscation).

The legal title of restitution applied to all assets located within the geographical scope of application of the law (objective territorial principle). Later, the principle also recognized a legitimate claim if there was proof that the asset entered the geographical scope of application after its confiscation. From 1954 onwards, the Berlin REAO order also recognized seizures by the German Reich in the later Eastern Sector of the city if the damaged party or its legal successor had his or her permanent abode within the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany or in West Berlin between January 30, 1933 and May 8, 1945.

It was settled case-law of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) that Wiedergutmachung claims could only be pursued in accordance with the respective restitution and compensation provisions. The allied restitution laws therefore took precedence over the German Civil Code: The 30-year limitation period of the Civil Code did not apply either but rather the very short application periods of the allied regulations (see BGH decision of October 8, 1953 – IV ZR 30/53, BGHZ 10, 340, 343). In 2012, the BGH partially revised this decision and admitted a restitution claim under § 985 BGB "if the property seized as a result of persecution was lost after the war and the owner only became aware of its whereabouts after the deadline for filing a restitution claim had expired" (BGH decision of March 16, 2012 – V ZR 279/10 PDF). This happened regardless of the still effective Restitution order of the Allied Kommandatura (REAO) for Berlin, whose deadlines had long since expired.

Federal Restitution Act

The allied restitution provisions did not take into account the claims against the German Reich, in case they aimed at any kind of monetary compensation. The "Federal Act for the Settlement of the Monetary Restitution Liabilities of the German Reich and Legal Entities of Equivalent Status" (Federal Restitution Act) of July 19, 1957 (BGBl. 1957 I, pp. 734–742 PDF) addressed these claims, which the German federal government had already recognized in the 1st Hague Protocol in 1952. The allied restitution provisions also remained effective, even though the majority of the legal proceedings had come to a decision by the end of the 1950s.

The Federal Restitution Act governed restitution claims for monetary compensation against the German Reich, including the special assets of the German Reichsbahn and the German Reichspost. The law also applied to restitution claims against the former Land of Prussia, the Reichsautobahnen company, the former National Socialist party (NSDAP) with its subdivisions and affiliated associations, and other dissolved institutions as well as against the Reich Association of Jews in Germany and the Emigration Fund Bohemia and Moravia. All of these state institutions were considered involved in confiscating Jewish property. In addition, the act reopened the deadlines for filing claims.

The Federal Restitution Act also adopted the territorial principle according to which the restitution or monetary compensation was only possible for assets located within the geographical scope of application of the act, i.e. the Federal Republic of Germany and West Berlin, at the time or after its confiscation. One exception were claims relating to personal belongings confiscated in a foreign harbor when the persecuted person had emigrated from the German Reich. The German government had promised to satisfy these claims already in the Hague Protocols. The third amendment of the REAO order of October 2, 1964 (BGBl. 1964 I, pp. 809–814 PDF) further extended the REAO provision according to which the seizures of the German Reich in later East Berlin were deemed to be within the scope of application. The provision now also included seizures of other legal entities named in the Federal Restitution Act. Moreover, it now also applied to victims who had resided in Eastern Germany and in East Berlin from 1933 to 1945 and had moved to Western German Länder until December 31, 1961. 

When the claimant had his or her residence or permanent abode in areas with whose governments the Federal Republic of Germany did not maintain diplomatic relations, claims were rejected. This diplomatic clause excluded Eastern Bloc countries and prevented foreign currency from entering the other side of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.

The German Oberfinanzdirektionen (Superior Finance Directorate, here: Department of Federal Assets) conducted the restitution proceedings. Claimants were able to appeal against the decisions at the Wiedergutmachungskammer (court for restitution-related matters) or, in the Länder of the former French occupation zone, at the regional court divisions. The supreme restitution courts adjudicated at last instance. As a rule, the Wiedergutmachung authorities and courts in West Berlin always had jurisdiction in cases of proven transfer of the seized property to the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany and Berlin (without specifying the exact location).

Under the Equalization of Burdens Act (BGBl. 1952 I, pp. 446-533 PDF), victims of National Socialist persecution could also claim compensatory payments for damage to their property if they had been forced to leave the country prior to their expulsion or if their property had been seized prior to the war damage. This became effective by special provisions of the "11th Ordinance on Compensatory Payments under the Equalization of Burdens Act" of December 18, 1956 (BGBL. 1956 I, pp. 932-935 PDF). Displaced victims were entitled to assert restitution claims for war-related material damage, loss of savings, and damage caused by expulsion, especially in and from Eastern Germany (Ostschäden). The provisions particularly addressed victims who did not qualify for any kind of compensation or restitution due to persecution-related confiscation of property or due to emigration and deportation. Compensatory payments were usually only available to those directly affected. In case of war-related material damage, victims of National Socialist persecution were recognized as directly affected, even though they had been deprived of their property before the damage occurred (e.g. due to bomb attacks). They were hence entitled to compensatory payments for the loss of value at the time of the deprivation.

Persecuted persons, who had left the later territories of expulsion due to emigration or deportation, received the status of so-called “Fiktivvertriebener” since they would have been expelled as Germans in 1945 anyway. They also obtained the right to compensation for damages caused by expulsion.

Damages caused by expulsion included damage to real property, agricultural and forestry assets, business assets, household effects, rights and interests, objects for the exercise of a profession etc. The damage had to result from persecution-related seizure. For this reason, the monetary compensation followed the value of the loss at the time of the seizure and not at the time of the victim’s displacement. Restitution was also possible for so-called Ostschäden, i.e. damage to rateable assets located in the formerly German Eastern territories that belonged to non-displaced persons (e.g. real estates in Silesia of a Cologne owner). Persecuted persons could apply for compensatory payments for these seized assets at the burden equalization offices. 

To obtain the status as “Fiktivvertriebene”, victims had to be of German nationality or ethnicity. According to § 6 of the Federal Expellee Act, “anyone who has professed German nationality in his or her home country” qualified as an ethnic German, “provided that this profession is confirmed by certain characteristics such as origin, language, education and culture”. Particularly Jewish victims who had emigrated from Eastern Europe often considered it demanding and humiliating to have to prove their “Germanness” e.g. by language tests.

As a matter of fact, the Soviet occupation zone and in the GDR did not actually restitute seized assets to the persecuted victims. After the German reunification, the federal government hence took a range of legislative measures to remedy this injustice.

In an exchange of notes with the former occupying powers on September 27/28, 1990, the German government promised to provide for the restitution of assets confiscated in the former GDR territory between 1933 and 1945. The Unification Treaty transferred the restitution provisions and the Federal Compensation Act in form and content to the acceding territory. This was a rather symbolic gesture, though. Due to the expired deadlines, the provisions no longer had any practical effect. 

The "Act Regulating Open Property Matters” of September 23, 1990 (BGBl. 1990 II, pp. 1159–1168 PDF) governed restitution matters in the new German Länder. Adopted as part of GDR legislation, the Act came into force with the Unification Treaty. It primarily regulated property transfers after 1945 but also applied to the restitution of property seized because of persecution in the territory of the new Länder between 1933 and 1945. It referred to the Berlin REAO with regard to the assumption of a persecution-related loss of property.

The Act Regulating Open Property Matters generally provided for the retransfer of assets; however, compensatory payments were also possible in accordance with the Victims of Nazi Persecution Compensation Act of September 27, 1994 (BGBL. 1994 I, p. 2632 PDF). For the assessment of damages, the regulations of the Federal Restitution Act applied. In case of heirless Jewish assets, the Act designated the Jewish Claims Conference as legal successor.

The newly established Federal Republic of Germany was subject to the Occupation Statute for Germany of May 12, 1949 (Abl. AHK 1949, no. 1, pp. 2, 13–15 PDF). According to this statute, the Western allies were not only responsible for restitution and reparations and for monitoring Wiedergutmachung for National Socialist injustice, but also for Germany’s foreign affairs as a whole. The Federal Republic of Germany was neither a new state nor a legal successor to the German Reich. As the Federal Constitutional Court stated in its ruling on the Basic Treaty (BVerfGE 36, 1, p. 15 et seqq.), it was rather “a state identical to the state 'German Reich'", albeit in a newly organized form and with its sovereignty only extending to a part of the German Reich ("partial identity").

The Occupation Statute ended with the Bonn-Paris Conventions (Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and the FRG) and its supplementary treaties, including the Settlement Convention (Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation). The conventions were signed on May 26, 1952, but did not come into force for the time being due to the French failure to ratify the related treaty on the European Defense Community. It was not until May 5, 1955, until a revised version became effective (Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany of October 23, 1954, in: BGBl. 1955 II, pp. 213-252 PDF) as part of the Paris Agreements (BGBl. 1955 II, pp. 305–321 PDF). It gave the Federal Republic of Germany full sovereignty, albeit with restrictions: The allied powers reserved rights with regard to Germany as a whole, to the reunification and to the conclusion of a peace treaty.

In the Settlement Convention, the Three Powers had also insisted on a provision for the standardization and improvement of the compensation and restitution policy. In the third part of the treaty, the federal government promised to continue its restitution policy in accordance with the allied laws and to find a solution for the previously unsatisfied monetary claims against the German Reich. The Federal Restitution Act eventually solved this problem. With regard to compensation, the Federal Republic of Germany committed itself to a consistent national legislation. It fulfilled its obligation with the Additional Federal Compensation Act and the Federal Compensation Act.

The fifth part of the Settlement Convention governed the so-called external restitution, i.e. the return of valuables (jewelry, silverware, antique furniture, cultural assets) the German Reich and the Axis Powers had seized from the occupied territories during the Second World War. In order to document and return these objects, the federal government established the Federal Office for External Restitution (BGBl. 1955 II, p. 700 PDF).

After the end of the Second World War, an agreement on the total amount of reparations was still pending. At the Potsdam Conference of August 1945 (excerpt in: German Bundestag. Stenographic reports. Vol. 12, p. 9551 et seqq. PDF), the victorious powers agreed on the withdrawal of industrial equipment from each zone to be completed within two years. They also determined the allocation of the reparations: the USA, Great Britain and the entitled states except the USSR and Poland received German foreign assets (except from Eastern Europe) and the assets of the Western zones. The USSR, who had to distribute also Poland's share of reparations, was allowed to draw assets from its own occupation zone and received another approx. 25 percent of the reparations from the Western zones. In 1953, the USSR and the Polish People's Republic waived their right to further reparations from Germany. (Protocol on the waiver of reparation payments, August 22, 1953, and Declaration by the People's Republic of Poland, August 24, 1953, both reprinted in: Berliner Zeitung 9th vol. no. 196, p. 3 and 4. PDF)

The Paris Agreement (also IARA Agreement) of January 14, 1946, addressed reparations in the Western zones. (German Bundestag. Stenographic reports. Vol. 12, pp. 9552–9555 PDF). It postponed the final settlement of the reparations issue to the time of a peace treaty (Art. 2 B).

The London Agreement on German External Debts of February 27, 1953 (BGBl. 1953 II, pp. 331-485 PDF), then stated in Art. V that the "consideration of claims arising out of the second World War by countries which were at war with or were occupied by Germany during that war, and by nationals of such countries […] shall be deferred until the final settlement of the problem of reparation.” Since the settlement of the reparations issue had been postponed until the conclusion of a peace treaty, the Federal Republic was – according to their argumentation – exempt from foreign claims for the time being. Israel and the Jewish Claims Conference as well as the Western allies formed an exception, though. 

Israel and Jewish Organizations

The agreement with Israel and the Jewish Claims Conference only a few years after the Holocaust was certainly the most difficult and most important in terms of Wiedergutmachung. After difficult negotiations, the Federal Republic of Germany and Israel concluded the Luxembourg Agreement on September 10, 1952 (BGBl. 1953 II, pp. 35–97 PDF). It provided financial support for the settlement and integration of Jewish victims of National Socialist persecution in Israel, e.g. through the supply of necessary goods and services.

As part of the Luxembourg Agreement, the German federal government signed the two ‘Hague Protocols’ it had negotiated with the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany (Jewish Claims Conference), a coalition of more than twenty Jewish organizations.  In the first Hague Protocol, the German government committed itself to improve and facilitate legislation on compensation and restitution for the benefit of the victims of persecution. Under the second Hague protocol, it agreed to provide the Jewish Claims Conference with global payments to be used “for the relief, rehabilitation and resettlement of Jewish victims of National-Socialist persecution” […], “who at the time of the conclusion of the present agreement were living outside of Israel.”

Among other important agreements were the so-called Dinstein Agreement of February 6, 1970, which regulated the financing of pensions in the case of damage to health for Jewish victims living in Israel, and the Agreement on Social Security concluded on December 17, 1973 (BGBl. 1975 II, pp. 246–252 PDF). Both considerably improved the pension situation particularly for elderly victims of National Socialist persecution living in Israel.

USA

Germany concluded a similar agreement on social security with the USA. The agreement of January 7, 1976 (BGBl. 1976 II, pp. 1358–1370 PDF), significantly increased the old-age pensions for the victims of National Socialist persecution living in the USA.

Western Europe

Due to the territorial principle in German Wiedergutmachung legislation and due to the postponed reparations issue, the majority of Western European victims of National Socialist persecution was not entitled to any kind of compensation or restitution. On June 21, 1956, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway addressed identical notes to the German federal government (e.g. verbal note from Denmark dated June 21, 1956, in: BArch, B 136/3306, p. 8  et seqq. PDF). After a long decision-making procedure, the Federal Republic of Germany concluded global agreements with these eight and other Western countries: with Luxembourg on July 11, 1959 (BGBl. 1960 II, pp. 2077–2108 PDF), with Norway on August 7, 1959 (BGBl. 1960 II, pp. 1336–1338 PDF), with Denmark on August 24, 1959 (BGBl. 1960 II, pp. 1233–1335 PDF), with Greece on March 18, 1960 (BGBl. 1961 II, pp. 1596–1598 PDF), with the Netherlands on April 8, 1960, (BGBl. 1963 II, pp. 629–645 PDF; BGBl. 1963 II, pp. 663–665 PDF), with France on July 15, 1960 (BGBl. 1961 II, pp. 1029–1033 PDF), with Belgium on September 28, 1960 (BGBl. 1961 II, pp. 1037–1039 PDF), with Italy on June 2, 1961 (BGBl. 1963 II, pp. 791–797 PDF), with Switzerland on June 29, 1961, (BGBl. 1963 II, p. 155  et seqq.. PDF), with Austria on November 27, 1961 (BGBl. 1962 II, pp. 1041–1063 PDF), with Great Britain on June 9, 1964 (BGBl. 1964 II, pp. 1032–1036 PDF) and with Sweden on August 3, 1964 (BGBl. 1964 II, pp. 1402–1404 PDF). 

The agreements each granted global payments. Individual victims did not receive direct payments from Germany. Instead, the recipient countries decided independently on the appropriate allocation of the money to their citizens who had suffered from National Socialist persecution.

Separate agreements addressed the problem of compensation for forcefully recruited Wehrmacht soldiers from Belgium (Eupen-Malmedy), France (Alsace-Lorraine), and Luxembourg. The issue was solved in the agreements with Belgium of September 21, 1962 and of December 5, 1973 (BGBl. 1964 II, pp. 455–460 PDF; BGBl. 1974 II, pp. 1252–1255 PDF), in the agreement with France of March 31, 1981 (BGBl. 1984 II, p. 608 et seqq. PDF) and in the exchange of notes with Luxembourg of November 30, 1987, about the German contribution to Luxembourg “Assistance to the Elderly” Foundation to support former forced recruits and their families.

Eastern Europe

The détente period in the early 1970s produced a number of agreements with Eastern European countries that represented indirect Wiedergutmachung in the form of financial and economic aid.

The agreements followed the path-breaking Treaty on Economic Cooperation with Yugoslavia of March 10, 1956 (BGBl. 1956 II, pp. 967–669 PDF). The talks between Federal Chancellor Brandt and President Tito on Brioni Island, which later coined the term ‘Brioni Formula’ for this kind of indirect Wiedergutmachung, resulted in two supplementary agreements: the Capital Assistance Agreements of February 20, 1972 and of December 10, 1974 (BGBl. 1975 II, pp. 361–363 PDF).

Germany and Poland came to a similar arrangement. Aside from an Agreement on Pension and Accident Insurance of October 9, 1975 (BGBl. 1976 II, pp. 393-402 PDF), which included a lump-sum settlement of Polish claims to the German pension insurance scheme, Poland received a low-interest multi-billion loan. In return, Germans living in Poland obtained the permission to leave the country (Bulletin no. 121. October 10, 1975, pp. 1198–1199 PDF).

In order to settle restitution claims from Hungary, the German federal government entered into an agreement with the National Committee of Persons Persecuted by Nazism in Hungary (Nácizmus Üldözötteinek Bizottsága) on January 22, 1971 (BArch, B 136/7296, pp. 228–242 PDF). It provided for a global payment to the Hungarian government.

In addition, the German government concluded special global agreements with various Eastern European countries to facilitate the compensation procedures for victims of pseudo-medical experiments. They included the agreements with Yugoslavia on April 24, 1961 and September 7, 1963 (supplementary agreement), with the ČSSR on October 30, 1969 (BArch, B 136/7295, pp. 8-10 PDF),with Hungary on January 11, 1971 (BArch, B 136/7296, pp. 243-257 PDF), and with Poland on November 16, 1972.

United Nations

In the Settlement Convention, the German government had agreed to pay compensation to victims who had suffered damage primarily for reasons of their nationality and who had been recognized refugees within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions on October 1, 1953. Those affected usually came from Poland or from the Soviet Union and no longer wanted to return into their communist home countries but settle in the Western Europe. For these victims persecuted for reasons of nationality (so-called Nationalverfolgte), who did not qualify as victims according to the Federal Compensation Act, a special provision was added (§§ 76 et seqq. BErgG, §§ 167 et seqq. BEG). It granted pension payments, however, only in case of permanent damage to body and health suffered due to nationality. Nationalverfolgte were not entitled to compensation for deprivation of liberty or to survivors’ benefits.

Many victims hence received only inappropriate or no compensation payments at all. Because national and international criticism continued unabated, the German federal government came to an agreement with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on October 5, 1960 (BAnz No. 53, March 16, 1961, p. 3 PDF). Germany committed itself to establish a hardship fund administered by the High Commissioner and to increase compensation payments for damage to health. On November 24, 1966, both parties agreed on a supplementary fund, and on November 11, 1981, they entered into another agreement (BGBl. 1982 II, p. 80 et seqq. PDF) providing additional resources for refugees who had left their home country only after December 31, 1965. 

The dynamics of German Wiedergutmachung gained new momentum in the 1990s after the German reunification and the end of the Cold War. With regard to the countries in Central Eastern and Eastern Europe, the deficiencies of Wiedergutmachung became clearly visible. Moreover, the question of the previously rejected compensation for forced labor returned with vehement passion. The USA, who acted as a driving force behind these reopened debates, also achieved agreements on compensation issues with reunified Germany.

Open Property Issues

For many years prior to the reunification, the GDR and the USA had been negotiating unsuccessfully about unresolved property issues. The talks primarily focused on property of US citizens that had been seized on GDR territory during or after the National Socialist era and had not been returned. Reunified Germany continued the negotiations, which resulted in the Agreement Concerning the Settlement of Certain Property Claims on May 13, 1992 (BGBl. 1992 II, pp. 1222–1227 PDF).

Foundations and Projects

When the German federal government faced the need to compensate Eastern European victims of National Socialist persecution, it decided not to reopen the expired BEG deadlines nor to establish a new legal title for compensation. Instead, it provided money to set up several endowment funds in the countries affected. Victims of National Socialist persecution received humanitarian aid from these funds in cases of hardship.

The first such fund was the "Foundation for Polish-German Reconciliation" established with the exchange of notes between the Federal Republic of Germany and Poland on October 16, 1991. It was followed by the exchange of notes between the Federal Republic of Germany and Belarus, Russia and Ukraine on March 30, 1993 on the financial backing for setting up the foundations in the three countries. A joint declaration by Germany and the Czech Republic of December 29, 1997 (BGBl. 1998 II, pp. 118–126 PDF), initiated the German-Czech Future Fund.

The German federal government also concluded intergovernmental agreements with each of the Baltic countries on the financing of specific social projects for the individual needs of victims of National Socialist persecution: with Estonia on June 22, 1995, with Lithuania on July 26, 1996 and with Latvia on August 27, 1998. Similarly, further Eastern and South-Eastern European countries (Albania, Bulgaria, the successor states of Yugoslavia, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary) received financial support between 1998 and 2000 (Hirsch Initiative). Organizations in the respective countries, such as the Red Cross, were responsible for the implementation of the necessary measures.  

On July17, 2000, Germany and the USA set up a somewhat different organization (BGBl. 2000 II, pp. 1372–1388 PDF). The foundation "Remembrance, Responsibility and Future" (EVZ Foundation) eventually organized compensation for forced labor.

Provisions for individual services

The German federal government reached further agreements with the USA and with the Jewish Claims Conference on hardship provisions and specific assistance in individual cases.

USA

On September 19, 1995, Germany and the USA signed an ultimate agreement on payments to certain US citizens who had suffered National Socialist persecution. The agreement included a supplemental arrangement of January 25, 1999 (U.S. Department of State. Office of Treaty Affairs. Treaties and Other International Acts Series no. 13019 online version).

Jewish Claims Conference

On October 29, 1992, the German federal government concluded an agreement known as the "Article 2 Fund" with the Jewish Claims Conference. It referred to the German-German Agreement on the Implementation and Interpretation of the Unification Treaty of September 18, 1990. In Article 2, Germany had promised "to advocate just compensation for material losses suffered by victims of the National Socialist regime", and "to enter into agreements with the Claims Conference for additional fund arrangements in order to provide hardship payments to persecutees who thus far received no or only minimal compensation according to the legislative provisions of the German Federal Republic” (BGBl. 1990 II, pp. 1239–1245, PDF). The Article 2 Fund was revised on November 15, 2012 (Homepage of the German Embassy Santiago de Chile PDF).

Further agreements with the Jewish Claims Conference followed. These included, among others, an agreement of January 1998 on financial support for the newly established Central and Eastern European Fund (CEEF). In August 2014, both parties agreed to set up a joint fund that provided one-time payments to victims persecuted as children (Child Survivor Fund). The payments served as supplements for therapeutic, psychological and medical treatments. A revised version of the agreement on the funding of the JCC’s homecare program for Jewish Holocaust victims (Homecare Fund) entered into force on January 1, 2017.

The Wiedergutmachung policy in the Soviet occupation zone and in the GDR differed fundamentally from that in West Germany. The authorities in the Soviet occupation zone/GDR focused neither on the restitution of assets nor on compensation for personal damage: With the aim of constructing a socialist society, the restitution of private property seemed inappropriate. Enforceable compensation payments were incompatible with the socialist identity. Wiedergutmachung consisted of ideologically driven and paternalistic assistance for certain groups of victims. The GDR firmly disavowed responsibility for the actions of the German Reich between 1933 and 1945. In its understanding, the German Reich had collapsed 1945 and the GDR was an anti-fascist re-established country whose very existence itself implied and substantiated Wiedergutmachung.

The first measures taken by the Soviet occupying power were still in line with the joint allied decisions. In accordance with the Control Council Proclamation No. 2 of September 20, 1945 (ABl. KR 1945, pp. 8–19 PDF) and the Control Council Law No. 2 of October 10, 1945 (ABl. KR 1945, pp. 19–21 PDF), the Soviet Military Administration proclaimed the Orders No. 124/45 of October 30, 1945 (Documents 1945–1949, pp. 189–192 PDF) and No. 126/45 of October 31, 1945 (Documents 1945–1949, pp. 194–196 PDF). The orders enabled the confiscation of property of the former German Reich and of National Socialist organizations in the Soviet occupation zone and in the Soviet sector of Berlin.

The subsequent SMAD Orders No. 97/46 of March 29, 1946 (Documents 1945–1949, pp. 252–256 PDF), and No. 82/48 of April 29, 1948 (RegBl. Mecklenburg 1948, p. 76 PDF), called for the Länder to allocate the confiscated organizational assets by means of appropriate Land commissions. The assets were primarily restituted to so-called anti-fascist-democratic organizations, parties and similar institutions (e.g. " Law on the transfer of assets of the Land of Saxony-Anhalt to anti-fascist-democratic organizations ", of May 30, 1947, in: GBl. Sachsen-Anhalt 1947 I, p. 97 et seqq. PDF). The rest turned into "public property".

Restitution to individual victims indeed appeared in the first post-war Land law on general restitution matters, which was the "Act on Wiedergutmachung of Thuringia" of September 14, 1945 (RegBl. Thüringen 1945 I, pp. 24–26 PDF). The provision proved ineffective, though, and did not apply for long. It was repealed in 1952 (RegBl. Thüringen 1952, p. 189 PDF). In the Soviet occupation zone and in the GDR, the restitution of individual property of victims of National Socialist persecution did not take place at all or only to a very limited extent.

The Soviet occupation zone and the GDR also lacked provisions on compensation. Instead, the post-war emergency assistance measures, that had become common practice in all occupation zones, continued. In particular, the "Main Committee for the Victims of Fascism", which had been set up in the Berlin Magistrate in 1945, set an example. It primarily paid attention to persecuted communist fighters. Victims were categorized into "Fighters against Fascism" (members of "anti-fascist parties" and political resistance fighters) and "Victims of Fascism" (those persecuted for reasons of race, religion and political opposition). Similar categories later also applied in the GDR.

On October 5, 1949, just before the foundation of the GDR, the German Economic Commission issued the "Order to secure the legal position of recognized victims of National Socialist persecution" (ZVOBl. SBZ 1949 I, p. 765 et seqq. PDF). According to this order, recognized victims received preferential treatment in the areas of pension benefits, social and health care, and housing, as well as in the provision of household effects and study grants for children. The victims did not have a legal claim to these benefits. The Ministry of Labor and Health granted the required status as "Victim of the Nazi Regime" based on guidelines issued on February 10, 1950 (GBl. DDR 1950, pp. 92–94 PDF). A distinction between "fighters" and "victims" no longer existed but was reintroduced with the "Ordinance on the Institution of the Medal for Fighters against Fascism" of February 22, 1958 (GBl. DDR 1958 I, p. 198 et seqq. PDF). All holders of the medal also received an honorarium.

From 1965 onwards, the differences in the scope of monetary assistance would become even clearer: The decree of April 8, 1965 (GBl. DDR 1965 II, p. 293 et seqq. PDF), introduced honorary pensions for "Fighters against Fascism" and for "Victims of Fascism". The recognition as a "victim” still complied with the guidelines of 1950, while the recognition as a "fighter" followed the provisions for the aforementioned medal. The honorary pensions significantly increased in 1976 (BArch, DC 20/4104, p. 25–28 PDF), in 1985 (BArch, DC 20/4100, p. 54 et seqq. PDF), and in 1988 (BArch, DC 20/4100, p. 113 et seqq. PDF). Since 1971, they no longer had an effect on other kinds of pensions (BArch, DC 20-I/4/2525, pp. 18–21 PDF). Fighters against Fascism and Victims of Fascism were thus also entitled to a special old-age and invalidity pension from social insurance (§ 54 Ordinance on the Granting and Calculation of Social Insurance Pensions, November 23, 1979, in: GBl. DDR 1979 I, pp. 401-413, here p. 54 et seqq. PDF). In addition, even if they did not have social insurance, they received sickness benefits in the amount of the net average income in case of disability (§ 48 Ordinance on Social Insurance in the GDR Public Insurance, November 9, 1977, in: GBl. DDR 1978 I, pp. 1-22, here p. 10 PDF) and benefits in the health and social sector. (You can find an overview of the individual measures in: "Übersicht über die gesetzlichen und gesellschaftlichen Grundlagen für die Betreuung der Kämpfer gegen den Faschismus (VdN) sowie für deren Hinterbliebene" (in German only), issued by the central administration of the Committee of Anti-Fascist Resistance Fighters in June 1975.

On March 18, 1974, the "Guidelines for Recognition as Persecutees of the Nazi Regime" of 1950 expired by decision of the chairs of the GDR Council of Ministers (BArch, D C 20-I/4/3036, pp. 125–133/4 PDF). The recognition as a victim was no longer possible. After the sociopolitical changes in the GDR in the fall of 1989, the Council of Ministers reinstated the guidelines on March 1, 1990 (BArch, DC 20-I/3/2925, pp. 120–124 PDF). The Pension Adjustment Act of June 28, 1990 (GBl. DDR 1990 I, pp. 495–500 PDF) converted the honorary pensions 1:1 into Deutsche Mark. The Unification Treaty provisionally extended their validity. (Statistical data on the payment of honorary pensions through the GDR social insurance system and the special pension systems of the MfS/AfNS, MdI and MfNV/MfAV of June 30/July 1, 1990 in: Kurzmitteilung Za4 an IVa2 (BMA), in: BArch, B 149/91471 PDF).

The chart shown above provides information on the number of recipients of honorary pensions for Fighters against Fascism and for Victims of Fascism in the GDR on July 1, 1990, i.e. the day when the economic and monetary union with the Federal Republic of Germany became effective. In the GDR, honorary pensions were part of the pension insurance scheme. The majority of the recipients received their payments from the social insurance of the Freie Deutsche Gewerkschaftsbund (statutory health, accident and pension insurance for workers and employees in the GDR). There were special pension schemes for members of the security authorities, such as for the Ministry of National Defense (MfNV, later Ministry of Disarmament and Defense, MfAV), the Ministry of State Security (MfS, later Office for National Security, AfNS) and the Ministry of the Interior (MdI).

The 1950 ordinance granted the status as "Victim of the Nazi Regime" and corresponding benefits only to GDR residents. Since the GDR did not consider itself a legal successor of the German Reich, it refused to accept Wiedergutmachung claims from abroad.

However, the GDR government declared its willingness to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to settle the still unresolved financial matters of the war and pre-war period by paying a global sum as 'moral Wiedergutmachung'. (Negotiating directive, Annex 6 to Protocol no. 10 of the meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the SED on April 9, 1963, in: BArch, DY 30/42856, pp. 107-109 PDF). On May 22, 1963, the GDR concluded an agreement with Yugoslavia "on the settlement of certain unresolved issues in the relations between the two states" (Information for the GDR Council of Ministers, in: BArch, DC 20-I/4/731, p. 113 et seqq. PDF, and resolution of the GDR Council of Ministers of May 30, 1963, in: BArch, DC 20-I/4/727, p. 38. PDF). These issues were in fact Yugoslav claims in the area of social security, civil law claims and restitution claims which, according to the Yugoslav declaration, the global payment satisfied (Information for the Politburo of the Central Committee of the SED, May 25, 1963, in: BArch, DY 30/48491 PDF). Yugoslavia also hoped for the agreement to support its cause in the struggle of its international recognition.

A brief exchange with Israel in the 1950s had resulted in the rejection of all claims by the GDR in 1956. Negotiations with the Jewish Claims Conference in the early 1970s, in the context of the international recognition of the GDR, did not produce any results. 

In the 1980s, the GDR started negotiations with several Western states on the settlement of unresolved property issues, i.e. the property losses of these states on GDR territory. It concluded corresponding global compensation agreements with Finland on October 3, 1984 (reprinted in: RGV A III 2), with Sweden on October 24, 1986 (reprinted in: RGV A III 3), with Austria on August 21, 1987 (reprinted in: RGV A Ill 4), and with Denmark on December 3, 1987 (reprinted in: RGV A Ill 5).  These agreements also included lump-sum settlements for restitution claims of victims of National Socialist persecution. The GDR, which was struggling with increasing economic difficulties, hoped for an improvement of the (economic) relations. An agreement with the USA did not materialize until reunified Germany concluded the German-American Agreement Concerning the Settlement of Certain Property Claims of 1992.